[2025:RJ-JP:42237] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.1690/2025 1. Lohadi Wife Of Shri Dhalleram, Aged About 75 Years, Resident Of Kotra Dahar, Palpur, Police Station Sadar Hindaun, District Karauli (Raj.) 2. Mantoori Wife Of Shri Hargyan, Aged About 48 Years, Resident Of Kotra Dahar (Kalakhana) Oalpur, Police Staion Sadar Hindaun, District Karauli (Raj.) ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. 2. Juttiram Son Of Jairam, Resident Of Kalakhana, Tehsil Hindaun City, District Karauli (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia, Addl. GA-cum-PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 15/10/2025 1. The instant criminal revision petition is preferred against the impugned order dated 04.09.2025 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Hindaun City District Karauli by which the application submitted by the complainant under Section 358 BNSS has been allowed and cognizance has been taken against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 147 and 302/34 IPC and they have been summoned through arrest warrant. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners do not want to press this revision petition on its merits, but submits that no specific role has been assigned to the petitioners for commission of the alleged offences. Learned [2025:RJ-JP:42237] (2 of 3) [CRLR-1690/2025] counsel submits that allegations of causing death of the deceased by striking vehicle upon the person of the deceased have been levelled against the main accused Surgyan, who has already been charge-sheeted and facing trial for the offences under Section 302 IPC. Learned counsel submits that the age of petitioner No.1 is 75 years and age of petitioner No.2 is 48 years and both are females and are ready and willing to face the trial for the offences charged, but the arrest warrants issued against them be converted into bailable warrants. 3. In support of his submissions, counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami Vs. State of Uttranchal reported in (2007) 12 SCC 1 wherein it has been held that in such like matters the accused should be summoned through bailable warrants. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners. 5. Considering the limited arguments made by learned counsel for the petitioners, this fact is not is dispute that no overt act has been assigned to the petitioners and the allegation of causing injury on the person of the deceased has been levelled against the main accused Surgyan. 6. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the fact that the petitioners are female, the trial court is directed to convert the arrest warrants issued against the petitioners into bailable warrants. The petitioners are directed to appear before the Trial Court on or before 30.10.2025 and they be released subject to satisfaction of the trial court. [2025:RJ-JP:42237] (3 of 3) [CRLR-1690/2025] 7. In view of above, the criminal revision petition stands disposed of. Stay application as well as all applications (pending, if any) stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/147